We tried to go after a pretty big topic on the radio show this past Monday--"What is the biggest threat to Christianity?" A few interesting answers were thrown on the table, including disillusionment with religion and religion continuing to come to terms with modern ways of thinking.
I never really explained what I think is the biggest threat to Christianity: fundamentalism. One former Southern Baptist had this to say: "The inclination to conserve the creativities of the past can become such a compelling obsession that nothing new can ever pop into our heads. One of the tragedies of fundamentalism, religious or political or social, is that it is a joyless, argumentative, dogmatic, quarrelsome, fighting neurosis that squelches freedom and quenches creativity. The Devil of fundamentalism scowls and frowns and complains and opposes and bickers and moans and maneuvers and manipulates and schemes and plots but seems incapable of achieving the freedom to enjoy a hearty laugh. Revealed religion, we bear in mind, calls for creativity as well as conservation" (quoted in The Christian Century).
Fundamentalism claims that every word of scripture is inerrant and comes from God. In my view, this approach to the Bible raises its words to the role of divinity themselves. I believe that scripture springs from humanity's struggle to search for God and the expression of an understanding of God. To speak of the Bible as the inerrant Word of God is nothing else than idolatry--an idolatry of the Bible, in which the words of scripture take the place of God.
Our denomination (the United Church of Christ) has put on an entire evangelism campaign based on the slogan "God is still speaking." To make this claim means that God's words are more than just what scripture records. It means that God did not stop speaking sometime in the century after Jesus' crucifixion, but continues to seek us out now, just as the Spirit of God's voice sought out the biblical authors in ancient times. Sometimes we get it wrong today, and sometimes they got it wrong back then, too. Our God is a living God; to limit the message of God to words written down by ancient writers turns God into a dead deity, speaking words conditioned by a culture that no longer makes sense to most of us.
It is no news that fundamentalism leads to intolerance, extremism, hatred, fear, and even war. For me, there is simply no way of reconciling this way of reading scripture with the message of the God we find in Jesus Christ who reminded us to love our neighbors as ourselves.
-Pastor Chris
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
The Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright
As long as I tried to put off talking about another political news story, on the April 6 radio show I discussed the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, former pastor of my denomination's largest congregation--Trinity United Church of Christ.
Here are some random thoughts I e-mailed to a friend after the Rev. Dr. Wright's comments hit the airwaves:
"The fact that single lines are taken out of context
and run on air over and over again is, of course,
terrible. But I was more disappointed with the public's
response--why can't we Americans accept the
possibility that the rest of the world may have
legitimate reasons to dislike us? Why do so many of
us insist on the fantasy that America does no wrong?
It's unfortunate that the debate in the media has been
over Senator Obama's acceptance/rejection of Wright, and not
over the accuracy of Wright's comments.
"One more rant--too many Christians think the point of
religion is ONLY to comfort, and that's simply not
borne out by scripture. If God is a God of love, then
God is also a God of justice (which is merely love
applied in a societal context), which means that those
who sincerely try to speak God's message will
necessarily have to confront those in power, at one
time or another. The prophets of the Hebrew
Scriptures (Old Testament) were full of challenge to
society and those in power when they spoke on behalf
of the God of love, and Jesus didn't exactly avoid
ticking people off either..."
So, there you have it. That's all I have to say on the subject. For more information on the denomination's response, you can visit the website of the United Church of Christ at http://www.ucc.org/news/responding-to-wright.html
The news section also contains many other related stories.
Lamenting that this political campaign season is way too long,
Pastor Chris
Here are some random thoughts I e-mailed to a friend after the Rev. Dr. Wright's comments hit the airwaves:
"The fact that single lines are taken out of context
and run on air over and over again is, of course,
terrible. But I was more disappointed with the public's
response--why can't we Americans accept the
possibility that the rest of the world may have
legitimate reasons to dislike us? Why do so many of
us insist on the fantasy that America does no wrong?
It's unfortunate that the debate in the media has been
over Senator Obama's acceptance/rejection of Wright, and not
over the accuracy of Wright's comments.
"One more rant--too many Christians think the point of
religion is ONLY to comfort, and that's simply not
borne out by scripture. If God is a God of love, then
God is also a God of justice (which is merely love
applied in a societal context), which means that those
who sincerely try to speak God's message will
necessarily have to confront those in power, at one
time or another. The prophets of the Hebrew
Scriptures (Old Testament) were full of challenge to
society and those in power when they spoke on behalf
of the God of love, and Jesus didn't exactly avoid
ticking people off either..."
So, there you have it. That's all I have to say on the subject. For more information on the denomination's response, you can visit the website of the United Church of Christ at http://www.ucc.org/news/responding-to-wright.html
The news section also contains many other related stories.
Lamenting that this political campaign season is way too long,
Pastor Chris
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Church & State
Well, we delved into the world of politics yet again on this past Monday's show. I reported a recent news item concerning the Internal Revenue Service's investigation of the United Church of Christ (the denomination in which I serve). The UCC's tax-exempt status has been called into question due to Senator Barack Obama's speech at the 50th Anniversary General Synod, held in June of last year in Hartford, Connecticut.
If you'd like to read the original story reported by United Church News, here's the link: http://www.ucc.org/news/obama-speech-in-2007-prompts-1.html
(One item of historical trivia--according to what I've seen, this appears to be the first time in American history that an entire religious body's tax-exempt status has been called into question.)
Of course a debate has begun over whether Senator Obama's speech constituted political activity for the UCC. Since I was present at this event (and actually sat directly behind the President and General Minister of the UCC, the Rev. John Thomas), I wanted simply to reiterate a couple points made in the news article. First, Senator Obama has been a member of the UCC for twenty years. Secondly, he was invited to speak on how his faith informs his public service well before he had declared himself to be a presidential candidate. Thirdly, he was one of 60 presenters at General Synod to speak on how faith intersects with vocation.
(On one interesting note that I saw from my unique seat--at one point, when Senator Obama made a statement that included some promise that began "When I'm President," both the Rev. John Thomas [president of the UCC] and Edith Guffey [Associate General Minister of the UCC and administrator of General Synod] looked at each other and rolled their eyes. I got the sense that they wished Senator Obama hadn't said that.)
Now, having given you all this information, I'm more interested in the bigger question posed by the situation. What is the appropriate relationship between religious bodies and government? I wholeheartedly believe in freedom of religion--including separation of church and state. But I also believe that the church should be free to speak from their values on issues relevant to social and political policy.
So, in simpler terms, where is the balance? Is it currently too far in one direction or another? Should tax-exempt status be dependent on status of political activity?
There are two extremes I abhor in this debate, and these two poles highly inform my thinking on these issues. First, theocracy is unacceptable. There are those on the religious right who explicitly claim this should be a Christian nation. For example, Randall Terry has been quoted by the Indiana News Sentinel as saying, "Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism." That's scary. The fact of the matter is that theocracy and democracy do not mix. Period.
The other extreme is to internalize religion as relevant only for personal or individual spirituality and salvation. This may be true for some, but I believe that Christian faith calls for much more. Much of what Jesus taught was grounded in images of the "Kingdom of God." Now, many choose to interpret this as a heavenly afterlife, but that's a misreading. When Jesus points to God's reign, he contrasts it with the current regime (in his case the Roman Empire), in which violence makes peace, victory comes from conquest, enemies are to be scorned and executed, and the poor are to be exploited in business as usual. I believe that Christians are called to work for Christian values actually based on Christ's teachings (which appears to be a novel concept for some): love enemies, honor the poor, love your neighbor, challenge the powers that maintain the status quo.
I believe it was Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia who once said that religion and politics come from the same wellspring: the difference between what is and what should be. It's a great sentiment, but one that fails to lay to rest all the questions we've raised. This debate is far from going away, and in a democracy, that's a good thing.
Out of hot wind for today,
Pastor Chris
If you'd like to read the original story reported by United Church News, here's the link: http://www.ucc.org/news/obama-speech-in-2007-prompts-1.html
(One item of historical trivia--according to what I've seen, this appears to be the first time in American history that an entire religious body's tax-exempt status has been called into question.)
Of course a debate has begun over whether Senator Obama's speech constituted political activity for the UCC. Since I was present at this event (and actually sat directly behind the President and General Minister of the UCC, the Rev. John Thomas), I wanted simply to reiterate a couple points made in the news article. First, Senator Obama has been a member of the UCC for twenty years. Secondly, he was invited to speak on how his faith informs his public service well before he had declared himself to be a presidential candidate. Thirdly, he was one of 60 presenters at General Synod to speak on how faith intersects with vocation.
(On one interesting note that I saw from my unique seat--at one point, when Senator Obama made a statement that included some promise that began "When I'm President," both the Rev. John Thomas [president of the UCC] and Edith Guffey [Associate General Minister of the UCC and administrator of General Synod] looked at each other and rolled their eyes. I got the sense that they wished Senator Obama hadn't said that.)
Now, having given you all this information, I'm more interested in the bigger question posed by the situation. What is the appropriate relationship between religious bodies and government? I wholeheartedly believe in freedom of religion--including separation of church and state. But I also believe that the church should be free to speak from their values on issues relevant to social and political policy.
So, in simpler terms, where is the balance? Is it currently too far in one direction or another? Should tax-exempt status be dependent on status of political activity?
There are two extremes I abhor in this debate, and these two poles highly inform my thinking on these issues. First, theocracy is unacceptable. There are those on the religious right who explicitly claim this should be a Christian nation. For example, Randall Terry has been quoted by the Indiana News Sentinel as saying, "Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism." That's scary. The fact of the matter is that theocracy and democracy do not mix. Period.
The other extreme is to internalize religion as relevant only for personal or individual spirituality and salvation. This may be true for some, but I believe that Christian faith calls for much more. Much of what Jesus taught was grounded in images of the "Kingdom of God." Now, many choose to interpret this as a heavenly afterlife, but that's a misreading. When Jesus points to God's reign, he contrasts it with the current regime (in his case the Roman Empire), in which violence makes peace, victory comes from conquest, enemies are to be scorned and executed, and the poor are to be exploited in business as usual. I believe that Christians are called to work for Christian values actually based on Christ's teachings (which appears to be a novel concept for some): love enemies, honor the poor, love your neighbor, challenge the powers that maintain the status quo.
I believe it was Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia who once said that religion and politics come from the same wellspring: the difference between what is and what should be. It's a great sentiment, but one that fails to lay to rest all the questions we've raised. This debate is far from going away, and in a democracy, that's a good thing.
Out of hot wind for today,
Pastor Chris
Monday, February 25, 2008
Lenten Temptations
On last Monday's show, we talked a little about the tradition of giving something up for Lent. Customarily, this practice of self-sacrifice is thought to bring one closer to God. I suggest, however, that this gets at only half of the Great Commandment to love God with heart, soul, mind, and might and to love your neighbor as yourself. Seeking to draw closer to God without including your neighbor in the equation simply misses half the boat.
Instead, I mentioned on the show, I believe that a better Lenten discipline of self-sacrifice should lead to some benefit for neighbor or for creation. In other words, just giving up chocolate for Lent is at one level, but cutting down on travel by gasoline is a form of self-sacrifice that helps the greater good (in this case, by helping to preserve God's creation). Another example might be giving up (non-fair trade) coffee; the self-sacrifice is still achieved, and yet love for neighbor (this time exploited farmers) is also expressed.
So, as I like to ask on the show, what do you think? Do the practices of self-sacrifice help you grow closer to God? Is simple individual spiritual growth enough for a Lenten journey? Should scripture's command to love neighbor along with loving God be taken just as seriously during Lent?
Instead, I mentioned on the show, I believe that a better Lenten discipline of self-sacrifice should lead to some benefit for neighbor or for creation. In other words, just giving up chocolate for Lent is at one level, but cutting down on travel by gasoline is a form of self-sacrifice that helps the greater good (in this case, by helping to preserve God's creation). Another example might be giving up (non-fair trade) coffee; the self-sacrifice is still achieved, and yet love for neighbor (this time exploited farmers) is also expressed.
So, as I like to ask on the show, what do you think? Do the practices of self-sacrifice help you grow closer to God? Is simple individual spiritual growth enough for a Lenten journey? Should scripture's command to love neighbor along with loving God be taken just as seriously during Lent?
Monday, February 11, 2008
Religion, Superstition, and Science
On this morning's show, we talked again about the relationship between religion and science, with a particular view toward the contentions raised by evolution--natural selection, creationism, intelligent design, etc.
I've shared my views on this issue with the Benson community a couple times through letters to the editor of the local newspaper. Essentially, I believe that the Bible--including the stories we find in Genesis--were never intended to serve as a science text. As I've pointed out, the first two chapters in Genesis don't even agree with each other concerning the process and order of creation. That's because they are two different stories, written at two different periods of time, by (at least) two different authors.
In the last few centuries, our culture has increasingly made the mistake of confusing truth with fact. Facts are measurable, observable, and provable. Truth goes beyond facts. Truth is about meaning. It can be found in facts, but also in metaphors, symbols, and myths.
You will not find facts regarding the creation of the world in the Book of Genesis. When the stories were composed, scientific evidence was neither extant nor important. Now we do have evidence, and we have theories--developed through scientific method--based on that evidence. However, you may find in the Book of Genesis a truth that God brings order out of chaos, that God sustatins the world, and that we are created in God's image.
There is little more that I can add to this very old discussion. It is a misunderstanding to caricature science as in the business of myth-busting religious truths; religion and science are about two different ways of attempting to explain the world. They can and should be compatible, but they are different and also should be.
What makes the current debate so alarming is that for too many Christians, science is seen as an enemy. As a result, our country's current administration has adopted anti-science views as part of policy. Official tours of the Grand Canyon, for example, no longer address the amount of time it would take for such a geological feature to form. And global warming--a proven phenomenon--remains to be taken seriously by our current leaders.
This is extremely dangerous. There are facts and evidence-derived understandings that hold consensus in the scientific community that religion must come to terms with. The earth is much older than 6,000-10,000 years. Genetically, we have more than 98% in common with our nearest evolutionary relatives. Humankind is having a massive negative impact on the planet, and if we don't change our collective behavior drastically, then we will destroy God's creation. These are all things we should accept, regardless of whatever our interpretation of sacred texts may be.
On the radio show last week, Pastor Steve Rheingans and I talked a little about supersition and folklore. We never really arrived at a defintion of supersition, and where superstition differs from religion.
However, I believe that when religion denies solid science, it ceases to be religion and slides into superstition. Many Christians, including our government, have fallen into this trap.
I've shared my views on this issue with the Benson community a couple times through letters to the editor of the local newspaper. Essentially, I believe that the Bible--including the stories we find in Genesis--were never intended to serve as a science text. As I've pointed out, the first two chapters in Genesis don't even agree with each other concerning the process and order of creation. That's because they are two different stories, written at two different periods of time, by (at least) two different authors.
In the last few centuries, our culture has increasingly made the mistake of confusing truth with fact. Facts are measurable, observable, and provable. Truth goes beyond facts. Truth is about meaning. It can be found in facts, but also in metaphors, symbols, and myths.
You will not find facts regarding the creation of the world in the Book of Genesis. When the stories were composed, scientific evidence was neither extant nor important. Now we do have evidence, and we have theories--developed through scientific method--based on that evidence. However, you may find in the Book of Genesis a truth that God brings order out of chaos, that God sustatins the world, and that we are created in God's image.
There is little more that I can add to this very old discussion. It is a misunderstanding to caricature science as in the business of myth-busting religious truths; religion and science are about two different ways of attempting to explain the world. They can and should be compatible, but they are different and also should be.
What makes the current debate so alarming is that for too many Christians, science is seen as an enemy. As a result, our country's current administration has adopted anti-science views as part of policy. Official tours of the Grand Canyon, for example, no longer address the amount of time it would take for such a geological feature to form. And global warming--a proven phenomenon--remains to be taken seriously by our current leaders.
This is extremely dangerous. There are facts and evidence-derived understandings that hold consensus in the scientific community that religion must come to terms with. The earth is much older than 6,000-10,000 years. Genetically, we have more than 98% in common with our nearest evolutionary relatives. Humankind is having a massive negative impact on the planet, and if we don't change our collective behavior drastically, then we will destroy God's creation. These are all things we should accept, regardless of whatever our interpretation of sacred texts may be.
On the radio show last week, Pastor Steve Rheingans and I talked a little about supersition and folklore. We never really arrived at a defintion of supersition, and where superstition differs from religion.
However, I believe that when religion denies solid science, it ceases to be religion and slides into superstition. Many Christians, including our government, have fallen into this trap.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Religious Diversity
In a sermon just a few months ago, I cited a couple facts from Diana Eck's A New Religious America (2001): 1) There are presently more than three hundred temples in Los Angeles, home to the greatest variety of Buddhists in the world; 2) There are more American Muslims than there are American Episcopalians, Jews, or Presbyterians; and 3) The U.S. has become the most religiously diverse country in the world.
In light of this week being the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, I asked on Monday's radio show why so many of us are afraid of religious diversity. I claimed that religious diversity is not only a fact of American life (as shown by Diana Eck's book), but that it is a GOOD THING, and it's been a part of American life from the beginning. (Was not the "First Thanksgiving" an interfaith gathering?)
So, as I like to ask, what do you think? Is religious diversity a good thing? Why do so many Americans--specifically American Christians--find it threatening? How do scripture's call to welcome the stranger and Jesus' reminder to love our neighbor play into relating to folks of other faiths? And finally, what does our state of inter-religious understanding mean for the U.S. as a society?
(In case there are local people in Benson who don't see relevance to any of these questions, let us recall that Minnesota has the distinction of sending the first known Muslim person as a representative to the U.S. Congress--Keith Ellison.)
In light of this week being the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, I asked on Monday's radio show why so many of us are afraid of religious diversity. I claimed that religious diversity is not only a fact of American life (as shown by Diana Eck's book), but that it is a GOOD THING, and it's been a part of American life from the beginning. (Was not the "First Thanksgiving" an interfaith gathering?)
So, as I like to ask, what do you think? Is religious diversity a good thing? Why do so many Americans--specifically American Christians--find it threatening? How do scripture's call to welcome the stranger and Jesus' reminder to love our neighbor play into relating to folks of other faiths? And finally, what does our state of inter-religious understanding mean for the U.S. as a society?
(In case there are local people in Benson who don't see relevance to any of these questions, let us recall that Minnesota has the distinction of sending the first known Muslim person as a representative to the U.S. Congress--Keith Ellison.)
Friday, January 18, 2008
"Christian" Advertising
I know it's been quite a while since my last post. I never got around to posting anything on various Christmas-themed topics I had in mind. (You know how that time of year gets.)
But it's a new year, and time for a new post. On the radio show this past week, we talked about the use of Christian symbols in business advertising. Perhaps you've seen the Christian fish on a billboard here and there, or even received a business card with the fish or the cross printed on it. (I know I have.) In a nutshell, I explained that I find the practice disgusting.
In a similar manner, it was once considered disrespectful to use the American flag in advertising. Of course, that guideline seems to have been widely forgotten. Is the same thing happening to symbols of Christianity?
Using a Christian symbol does not tell me one thing about any so-called "Christian" values you or your business possesses. It tells me nothing about your commitment to welcoming strangers or loving enemies, honoring creation or serving the poor. (The current inhabitant of the White House--among the most vocally Christian of any U.S. president--is a case in point.) What it does tell me is that you're willing to advertise with religious imagery to make a buck. Sounds a bit like making a graven image to me.
As I mentioned on Monday's radio show, if you hand me a business card with a Christian symbol on it, it will find its way to the trash can. If your business has a billboard that exploits religious symbols, I will make a point of not patronizing your establishment.
But that's enough of what I think. Any thoughts on the matter? Is it really exploitation to use religious imagery in this manner? Am I just too opinionated as I frequently am? Chime in and let me know!
-Pastor Chris
But it's a new year, and time for a new post. On the radio show this past week, we talked about the use of Christian symbols in business advertising. Perhaps you've seen the Christian fish on a billboard here and there, or even received a business card with the fish or the cross printed on it. (I know I have.) In a nutshell, I explained that I find the practice disgusting.
In a similar manner, it was once considered disrespectful to use the American flag in advertising. Of course, that guideline seems to have been widely forgotten. Is the same thing happening to symbols of Christianity?
Using a Christian symbol does not tell me one thing about any so-called "Christian" values you or your business possesses. It tells me nothing about your commitment to welcoming strangers or loving enemies, honoring creation or serving the poor. (The current inhabitant of the White House--among the most vocally Christian of any U.S. president--is a case in point.) What it does tell me is that you're willing to advertise with religious imagery to make a buck. Sounds a bit like making a graven image to me.
As I mentioned on Monday's radio show, if you hand me a business card with a Christian symbol on it, it will find its way to the trash can. If your business has a billboard that exploits religious symbols, I will make a point of not patronizing your establishment.
But that's enough of what I think. Any thoughts on the matter? Is it really exploitation to use religious imagery in this manner? Am I just too opinionated as I frequently am? Chime in and let me know!
-Pastor Chris
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)